Hmm is nintendo taking a huge risk with wii?
Posted by EtnaMaking the montion sensor tech in it controlls the main feature of the console and games it will support. Nintendo will have to make sure the innovative tech dosen't become a chore after initial excitement dies down.
what do you guys think
Posted by KlarthThe only faction in this generation not taking risks is Microsoft, and the only company likely to benefit from their risks is Nintendo. I'd say launching a way-overhyped $600 console likely to be stuffed full of rootkits and DRM is a tad more of a risk than a fancy controller.
Posted by TendoAddict
Quoting Etna:
what do you guys think
I think you're a little dim.
You're saying that nintendo should go back to regular controller stlye after awail? Wouldnt that defeat the point of making the controller in the first place?
The point of the new controller is so that the inital fun wont go down because of all the new options. Its quite clear that this is what they intended.
But that doesnt mean they are not going to use classic controls. For example we know we can use regular controlls for SSBB. But nintendo is leaning for more innovation and less of the same old same old.
Posted by RandomSure you could say Nintendo is taking a risk but then again being the smaller company and needing to gain support from fans, then they'd have to take a risk. I believe it's a positive risk that will work out for them in the end.
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=SomebodyRandom]Sure you could say Nintendo is taking a risk but then again being the smaller company and needing to gain support from fans, then they'd have to take a risk. I believe it's a positive risk that will work out for them in the end.
They're not by any stretch of the word small, for the games market they have a bigger war chest than even Sony.
Posted by Proto Man
Quoting TendoAddict: For example we know we can use regular controlls for SSBB.
Source please.
Posted by TendoAddict
Quoting Protoman: Source please.
Oviously you skipped over some pages in the SSBB topic...
Posted by Proto Man
Quoting TendoAddict: Oviously you skipped over some pages in the SSBB topic...
More like I have never read the SSBB topic at all.
Posted by TendoAddict
Quoting Protoman: More like I have never read the SSBB topic at all.
Well now you know.
Posted by Last FogYeah its a fact you can use a gamecube controller for smash bros. If you had to use the remote for it that would be retarded and an all around bad idea. So if a game is more suitable for a regular controller, then it can use a regular controller. Where's the risk in that? The remote just gives more opportunities.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: If you had to use the remote for it that would be retarded and an all around bad idea
You can still use it. There might even be easter-eggs that you can only get with the Wiimote.
Posted by BebopIt is a risky thing but judging from all the over suprises the Wii can do and the feed back it is a risk that has payed off.
Posted by SpeedfreakBreaking away from the traditional running of the industry can be considered a huge risk from one perspective. But then the traditional way is incredibly risky anyway.
Posted by BurritoOf course, Nintendo is taking risks. Taking risks is important to the industry. For exmaple, Nintendo took ahuge risk when they released the NES after the video game crash and they ended up reinvigorating the video game industry.
Posted by BonerWith every possible proffit comes possible risk. Beit large or small, there is still risk. I think the Virtual Boy was more of a risk for them and they survived through that. So don't go getting your panties in a bunch just yet.....unless you are going to bunch them up in my mouth. Then it's ok.
Posted by Big Boss
Quoting Etna]Nintendo will have to make sure the innovative tech dosen't become a chore after initial excitement dies down.
It wasn't as bad of a risk as some people would like to believe. The industry didn't crash in Japan, so Nintendo safely released their Famicom there in 1983, staying far away from the U.S. at the time. After 2 or 3 years from the videogame crash in America, Nintendo advertised its system in 1985 as an "educational" toy, not a videogame console.
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Big Boss][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]It wasn't as bad of a risk as some people would like to believe. The industry didn't crash in Japan, so Nintendo safely released their Famicom there in 1983, staying far away from the U.S. at the time. After 2 or 3 years from the videogame crash in America, Nintendo advertised its system in 1985 as an "educational" toy, not a videogame console.[/COLOR][/FONT]
The amount of time after the crash isn't really relevent. Either way there was no home videogame market when Nintendo arrived in America. Releasing a product for a crashed market is a huge risk in any business however you look at it.
And they marketed it as a robot, actually. Didn't last too long, what with R.O.B sucking and all.
Posted by Klarth[quote=Speedfreak]Didn't last too long, what with R.O.B sucking and all.
Now THERE'S something that needs to be updated for Wii.
Posted by Big Boss
Quoting Speedfreak: The amount of time after the crash isn't really relevent. Either way there was no home videogame market when Nintendo arrived in America. Releasing a product for a crashed market is a huge risk in any business however you look at it.
And they marketed it as a robot, actually. Didn't last too long, what with R.O.B sucking and all.
It's relevant in determining how much of a risk it really was. Some people believe that the videogame crash was worldwide, and that Nintendo came to the rescue to save an industry that was about to disappear from the face of the Earth, but it isn't that much of a heroic tale.
The farther away the crash of the industry was from people's memories, the more easily they'd be deceived into buying an NES without thinking of it as a home console and being reminded of the Atari 2600. R.O.B., which was used to persuade consumers and retailers into looking at the NES as anything but a videogame system, was just an accessory to hide its true nature. Once people played it and had fun with it, word would spread of its quality, and the robot no longer became a necessity to put units in stores and homes. It wasn't as risky as immediately releasing it after the crash, or presenting it as what it truly was, a videogame console. It wasn't as risky as Nintendo creating the system for the American market. They just exported something they already created for their home market. Had they failed, they'd still have the Japanese market to live on happily, which is where the console started either way. Nintendo released the system in Japan, and had it not been so popular in the East, Nintendo wouldn't have created a strategy to try and expand their market in America.
Posted by Pit_42Wii loooks so cool I can't wait to play it!
Posted by Hammered OnIt's not too risky.. it's extremely smart.
Posted by SaintNerevarNintendo knows what they are doing, i mean they created mario! to quote the original name for the system, the controls are going to be Revolutionary.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Nintendo knows what they are doing, i mean they created mario!
Sega knows what they are doing, i mean they created sonic!
Posted by Prince ShondronaiAnd how popular have Sonic's games been, compared to Mario's lately? How popular were they while Sega was falling from grace and losing loads of money while Nintendo continued their long tradition of...not losing loads of money?
Posted by Last Fog
Quoting Prince Shondronai: And how popular have Sonic's games been, compared to Mario's lately? How popular were they while Sega was falling from grace and losing loads of money while Nintendo continued their long tradition of...not losing loads of money?
The point is that Nintendo isnt going to be sucessful because they created a popular franchise, Sega did the same and look where that got them. Thats not a good reason.
But regardless, Nintendo is much more stable right now and generally smart decision makers.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: And how popular have Sonic's games been, compared to Mario's lately? How popular were they while Sega was falling from grace and losing loads of money while Nintendo continued their long tradition of...not losing loads of money?
Lately? I'm talking about their heyday. LF summed my point up pretty well. A franchise won't keep you afloat forever. People loved Sonic, but that didn't save them from bad business decisions and eventually dropping out of the console race. You can't just say "IT'S NINTENDO, THEY CREATED MARIO, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING" because in the end Mario has little to do with it. He won't save Nintendo. Just like Sonic couldn't save Sega.
Posted by Prince ShondronaiHey, sony didn't even create a flagship franchise and people still think they know what they're doing for no reason at all. All they have is a logo.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireWhich is exactly my point. More or less.
Posted by KlarthCRASH BANDICOOT IS OUR ANSWER TO SUPER MARIO!
EVEN THOUGH HIS GAMES ARE NOW ALL OVER THE PLACE ON NINTENDO'S CONSOLES!
OH ****!
Posted by Poco
Quoting Klarth: CRASH BANDICOOT IS OUR ANSWER TO SUPER MARIO!
EVEN THOUGH HIS GAMES ARE NOW ALL OVER THE PLACE ON NINTENDO'S CONSOLES!
OH ****!
Thank the original company for selling to Vevindi Universal for that one.
Yeah, Nintendo is taking a risk. I mean they are releasing a console. Sony is probably taking the biggest risk at the moment, though.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Prince Shondronai: Hey, sony didn't even create a flagship franchise and people still think they know what they're doing for no reason at all. All they have is a logo.
[COLOR="Yellow"]It's always better to have great games represent your company rather than a character or a continuing franchise, specially when some of those franchises haven't produced a good game in years (*ahem mario, dk, kirby and star fox). Sony always said they didn't want a mascot and Crash was only labeled as such by the fanboys. Nevertheless they still have Jak, Ratchet, Sly Cooper and ****ing kick *** Kratos to put a face on Sony's logo if you really insist on mascots being needed.[/COLOR]
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow](*ahem mario, dk, kirby and star fox ahem*)[/COLOR]
Mario: Try months
DK: The last actual DK game was years ago, Jungle Beat, and it owns
Kirby: Hell, name one good Kirby game ever
Starfox: I'll give you that one, but in fairness there's only been three, and Command has just been released and is apparantly very good.
Besides, the heck does Sony have? Killzone sucks, SotC is ridiculously overrated and PS3s version of Gran Turismo is shameful.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Speedfreak: Kirby: Hell, name one good Kirby game ever
[COLOR="Yellow"]Kirby's Dream Land 3, and most of the games before the N64.[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: Besides, the heck does Sony have?
[COLOR="Yellow"]Sly Cooper (series)
Jak & Daxter (series)
Ratchet and Clank (series)
Gran Turismo (series)
Dark Cloud (series)
Shadow of the Colossus
Ico
F[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]cking G[COLOR="Yellow"]o[/COLOR]d of F[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]cking War[/COLOR]
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow]Sly Cooper (series)
Jak & Daxter (series)
Ratchet and Clank (series)[/COLOR]
OH PLEASE.
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]Da[COLOR="Yellow"]m[/COLOR]n straight.[/COLOR]
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Ico
Dark Cloud (series)
Like anyone but a select handful gives a **** about those games. Ico was pretty good, but the vast majority probably hasn't even heard of it.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Vampiro: Like anyone but a select handful gives a **** about those games. Ico was pretty good, but the vast majority probably hasn't even heard of it.
[COLOR="Yellow"]So the number of sales determines how good a game is?[/COLOR]
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: So the number of sales determines how good a game is?
Nope. Just thought I'd mention. Plus, Ico wasn't even that great. A burried treasure, sure. But nothing to hold over anyone.
Posted by Klarth[quote=Aioros]So the number of sales determines how good a game is?
No, the number of sales determines how good of a representative for the franchise is for its home platform, which is what we are discussing.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Klarth: No, the number of sales determines how good of a representative for the franchise is for its home platform, which is what we are discussing.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Were discussing ALL aspects of it genious.[/COLOR]
Posted by s0ulNo, they were pretty much just talking about mascots.